Intervening in Libya

Libyan rebels are calling for America to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and to attack from the air the camps of murderous African mercenaries. This would, of course, be an act of war against Libya. Moreover, we would be intervening in a civil war. Why would we want to do this? What's the upside?

The humanitarian concerns are certainly compelling, but it was humanitarian concerns that led us into Somalia, and that didn't work out so well. If there was genocide being committed in Libya, if the oil fields were at risk, or if Libya was harboring active terrorists there'd be a strong case for intervention, but I don't know that any of these obtain, at least not yet.

If, however, conditions change and we find that citizens are indeed being slaughtered or that Ghadafi's forces are torching the oil fields, and the Obama administration opts for intervention they should do so only if the following are met:

• Other Arab and NATO nations participate in military operations.
• We have United Nations approval.
• We have ultimate authority for how operations are conducted (to avoid another Somalia which was a disaster because we were under a timid U.N. authority).
• Arab states pay the cost.
• We get Ghadafi, if he survives, to put on trial for the murder of the passengers on Pan Am 103.  

We've spent trillions of dollars and a ton of blood liberating Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq from tyranny and have largely gotten nothing but contempt from the Muslim world for our sacrifice. The imperative to rescue those who are being tyrannized is strong, but it's time for the rest of the Arab world, which is awash in cash, to both finance and to contribute materially to the cause. If we can reduce the long-term bloodshed we should, but the world can no longer expect us to both supply the firepower and manpower and foot the bill as well.

Especially when the Arab world is sitting on trillions of our petrodollars.